Lab Notes 8/7

Going For T

1. Provide an interpretation--evidence that says what is a good interpretation

A. What makes a good interpretation?
-sources: USFG defs, military defs, vs. dictionary, vs. contextual
-evidence that is exclusive and inclusive; if you don't have a single card that says what the topic is and what it excludes, combine two cards to establish a limit (inclusive evidence) and prove the aff isn't topical (exclusive evidence)
-you CAN'T just read a card that the Aff isn't topical--you MUST read evidence that also say what is topical to establish a limit on the topic
B. Why are some sources for definitions better than others?
-dictionary defs--intent to define, can be used across a broad number instances (whereas a contextual definition may only be discussing a specific example)
-contextual defs--used in the context of the Aff; field contextual definitions demonstrate more general definitions (dictionary defs) are inapplicable in a more specific context; especially important for terms of art (more accurately defines the meaning of the terms in the context of its resolutional meaning)

2. Violation

A. Sometimes straight forward--the Aff obviously doesn't meet

B. Sometimes need evidence
-especially true for substantial--you need evidence that proves that the Aff isn't substantial (e.g. cards that prove the number of troops withdrawn are a small/insubstantial percentage of troops)
-must also be prepared to define military presence in the 1NC/2NC--need to win what military presence means to prove its unsubstantial

3. Reasons to Prefer the Neg's interpretations (vs. the Aff's interpretations)

A. LIMITS, LIMITS, LIMITS, LIMITS, AND LIMITS.
-the Neg needs to defend their interpretation is good and the Aff doesn't fit within that interpretation
-it's not that you need to find the MOST limiting interpretation, but that it sets a reasonable/good limit on the topic

B. How to prove the Aff's interpretation is bad
-prove the ways in which the Aff results in a TYPE/KIND of affirmative which is bad (and potentially that the kinds of Affs the Aff's interpretation would exclude is also bad--e.g. saying only weapons systems is both potentially a smaller AND larger topic, both in negative ways)
-caselists--the kinds of the Affs the Neg allows; kinds of Affs that are possible under the Affirmatives interpretation
-give other examples--other affs that are being read and could be read--it's not just the Aff you're debating, but the KINDS of affs that then become permissible under the Aff's interpretation

C. Other "Standards?"
-No
-FX? -- is just another argument that the plan is not topical; if it's not topical it's not topical
Courts Aff--the question is whether the plan FIATS reduction or is just a decision/ruling; it's not an FX question
-Ground? -- begs the question; the question of limits (and what the topic is) needs to be sorted out first; there's always ground to be read, the question is what ground is available, and the question of what ground is available is only going to be determined by determining what the topic is (limits) first
You can talk about ground as a SUBSET of limits--what kind of ground is available as a result the limit that you/the Aff set on the topic
-Precision? -- this is just a limits argument; it says the topic will be too big if you're not super specific

4. IMPACTS

A. Competing interpretations vs. Reasonability?
-Competing interpretations: which interpretation is best for debate
-Reasonability: he way to sort out topicality is to figure out if there is an available interpretation of the topic that the affirmative meets; if yes the Aff is topical
-For both "frameworks" -- the judge is still making the decision about whether the interpretation is "best" OR "reasonable" -- they're deciding based on how it was debated out IN EACH PARTICULAR DEBATE, not as a rule; You're not asking the judge to decide what is best or reasonable in an "objective way" in either framework, it's all based on how its' debated out

WORDS TO STRIKE FROM YOUR VOCABULARY/Things Not To Do
-Breadth over depth
-Depth over breadth
-Underlimiting
-Overlimiting
-FX T
-FX T Good
-Extra T Good
-"The Aff is reasonably topical" (SHOULD SAY: THE AFF IS TOPICAL, IT MEETS A REASONABLE/GOOD INTERPRETATION OF THE TOPIC)


Japan BMD
1NC
China Condition CP
Security K
T --not weapons system
North Korea Disad--Cooperation Nuclear
Case
2NR
-China CP
-Security
-T

COIN Neg
-New Russia Impacts: US-India relations
-Jirga CP extensions

Iraq Colonialism
New Args: Democracy Promotion Disad (soft power disad)

Futenma

1NC
-T
-Condition CP OR Shimoji QPQ Disad
-Politics
-Security K

2NR
-Condition CP
-Shimoji Disad AND Case
-Politics AND Case
-T

-Japan Rearm Links
-Heg Rearm
-Politics

Lab Notes 8/5

Futenma Neg—Rufus
-politics links
-organize or write new Condition Japan—Christine
-other links for Futenma
-T not substantial

Counter Insurgency Aff—Finn and Ula
-More on Jirga CP
-Russia fill in DA
-Pakistan Impact w/Russia
-Pakistan Economy

Threaten Russia—Alex

BMD Neg—Rachel and Parisa

Drones Neg—Morgon
-T drones
-IHL/Geneva Convention = CIL
-AT: Virtual War Advantage
-Wilcox—read as part of security K rather than

Iraq—Aff and Neg—Adam
-Add-ons for Iraq Aff
-ISF CP Solvency Evidence, Better Link Ev
-More work on Israel

Iraq Colonialism—Andrew
-Kick out CP evidence
-Soft power DA

South Korea Aff—Morgon
-AT: Victimization K
-AT: Reform CP

Courts Aff—Ciera

Court Neg—Liam
-More impacts to court stripping
South Korea Aff and Neg
-Dylan

Surge—Kayleigh and Drew
Politics—Mariah
Updating Current Scenarios
Midterms scenarios good work
SKFTA bad
Specific affs

2Ns
-security K 2NC blocks
-da matters against K affs
-condition cp theory
-case and a disad

Lab Notes 8/2

-1ACs/1NCs completed
-send completed, timed 1ACs to Charles and Caroline by 9:30 tonight
-go over neg files

Afghanistan Nation Building

1NC
Jirga CP
Taliban Negotiations Disa--Pull Cards that Failure in Afghanistan Collapses US Cred
Russia Turn (on Case)
Security K (Specific Links--NATO, Failed States)
Politics (in file and generic link file)
CMR
Case!

2NR Options
Jirga CP w/ Taliban Disad (and potentially Russia Turn), Case Defense on Heg
Security K
Politics AND Case (or Jirga CP)
CMR AND Case (or Jirga CP)

DO NOT READ CONDITIONS CP

Afghanistan Counternarcotics Neg

1NC
Russia Turn (On Case)
Stop Doing Counter Narcotics but Leave the Troops--Nation Building Good CP
Politics
See Nation Building for Other Arguments
Security K

2NR
Stop Doing Counter Narcotics CP w/ Politics (and maybe Russia turns), Case Defense on Heg
Security K
Case and DA is a weaker 2NR option

DO NOT READ CONDITIONS CP

Afghanistan Drones Neg

1NC
T military is only troops--not military systems
Politics--Drones Are Popular
Redeployment--Drones Replaced by Troops (Malik 10 evidence)
Compensation--Contract Links (Lockheed Martin)
Gender IR K (read link from page 67)
Force Multiplier CP (surveillance and reconnaissance)--Net Benefit is Heg--Information Support Key
Case!
Court Version--Add or Substitute
Court Stripping Disad
Cite But Not Rule CP

2NR Options--General Options
T Military presence is only troops--not military systems
Redeployment AND Case
Compensation AND Case
Politics AND Case
Gender IR K
Force Multiplier CP w/Heg Net Benefit AND Case Defense
Court Version
Cite But Not Rule CP AND Court Stripping Net Benefit

DO NOT READ PAKISTAN'S RELATIONS CP

Iraq Policy Neg

1NC
-T immediate withdrawal
-T reduce above baseline of current reductions
-Partial Withdrawal CP (leave 30,000 in Iraq) to Train ISF--solves the case better is a net benefit (plan causes instability)
-Iran Negotiations CP (also, mix and match with partial withdrawal CP)
-Politics
-Kurds Disad
-Israel Confidence Disad
-Security K
-Iraq Stability Now + Iraq Stability Turns
-Hegemony Link turns (MUST PULL UQ Evidence for Heg)
-For SOFA Aff, read specific indicts and turns on SOFA (DON'T READ IF WE READ PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL CP)

2NR Options
-Partial Withdrawal CP (only), and Heg Defense--DO NOT extend impact defense on stability advantage
-Partial Withdrawal CP w/Israel Disad, maybe politics?
-Israel Disad AND Case
-Kurds Disad AND Case
-Security K
-NOT T (immediate withdrawal)

Iraq Colonialism Neg

1NC
-Iraq Kick the U.S. Out CP
-Disads from Iraq Policy Neg (*Kurds Disad)
-Pakistan Redeployment DA
-Politics
-Laser Compensation
-PMCs
-"Weigh the Disad" 1NC
-Case Frontlines Against Security and Orientalism/Racism (w/Stability Turn)

2NR Options
-Iraq Kick the U.S. Out CP w/ Lasers Disad
-Lasers/Politics (Redeployment and PMCs are Not independent 2NR options) AND Case
-Stability turns AND Case

DO NOT READ THE PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL CP
DO NOT READ THE CONDITION CP

Coercion Neg

1NC
Laser Compensation DA
Any Generic Disad
Weigh Consequences (Consequences Matter)

2NC
Laser Compensation DA w/ Weigh Consequences

Japan Policy Neg

1NC
T-In Means Throughout
Advantage CP--Asian Energy Cooperation
China Condition CP
F-22 Compensation Disad
Japan Politics
Regular Politics
Security K
Heg Good DA (on case)
Case--Go to Heg File to get evidence that withdrawing from Japan hurts US alliance; Go to Offshore Balancing Neg to get cards that say U.S. withdrawal freaks out China

2NR Options
China Condition CP
F-22 Compensation AND Case (AND Advantage CP)
Other DA AND Case
Security K

Japan K Neg

1NC
Gender IR K
SOFA/Japanese Jurisdiction CP
Kick the U.S. Out CP
CPGS DA
Case: read frontlines and look to Iraq K file

2NR Options
CPGS DA w/Japanese Jurisdiction CP
CPGS DA w/Kick out CP
CPGS DA w/Case

South Korea Military Withrawal Neg

1NC
Leave military exercise presence PIC
Condition CP
Compensation/CPGS
Politics
Security K--China and North Korea links

2NR Options
Leave military exercises PIC, AND case
Condition CP
Compensation/CPGS Disad AND case
Politics AND
case
Security K

South Korea Military Exercises Neg

1NC
Condition China CP
Security K
Case + Military exercises good (from other South Korea file)

2NR Options
Condition China CP
Security K

South Korea Prostitution Neg

1NC
Reform CP--adds regulations and implementation, education, etc.
Politics, other generic disad
Weigh the Disad/Large Impacts Are Important

2NR Options
Disad, Reform CP, Case Defense

Turkey TNWs

1NC
T-must be troops
Allied Prolif
Politics
Iran Prolif Good
Security K

2NR Options
T-must be troops (you must defeat the claim that nuclear weapons are distinct from other weapons)
Allied Prolif
Politics + Case
Security K

Lab Notes 7/30

-Send completed files to Charles and Caroline after library tonight; we'll send comments back that you need to complete tomorrow
-Check the negative arguments link on the Wiki to verify the accuracy of your argument list
-FOR SUNDAY, have a 1NC ready for the arguments you're working on

Lab Notes 7/29

Practice Round Pairings for the Intralab Debates will be posted at 9:00
AFF Disclosure: 9:00 email the other team and Charles and Caroline
NEG Disclosure: 11:00 email the other team and Charles and Caroline

Security K

A. Background

-Aff operates under the assumption that security (the ideal) is possible; the K suggests maybe we shouldn't think about the world that way--not only is that view unattainable and utopian but presumes that there is a fundamental similarity among people
The dream of the affirmative is that if you just remove the causes of conflict, everything will work fine because everyone is basically the same
-one way to respond to the view that all people want the same things is realism--conflicting interests are inevitable and states are not reasonable
-the security K agrees that distinctions are inevitable but assumes states/individuals can be reasonable
If you can prove that their assumptions of similarity are flawed, you've taken out a major part of the Aff
If life is lived through insecurity, the value structure provided by the aff (seeking security) is a bankrupt value system

*Discourse is not just words--it's our capacity to think about, talk about, and engage in the real world. It's not just utterances/words, but what we CAN imagine, say, do, etc.

B. Link args

1. The ways they value security
2. The ways they can't solve the problem
3. The way they look up for politics--looking to the USFG rather than speaking from the perspectival way
4. The assumption of fundamental sameness within humanity
5. Faith in monocausal logics of crises

C. Answering Specific Args

AT: We have specific scenarios/we actually do solve the conflict
1. You've misidentified the causes of the problem; they think they've fixed the problem but they didn't because they misunderstand the cause of conflict (bandaid-style args)
2. The very idea of trying to distinguish particular causes of conflict from larger causes of conflict is belied by the 1AC; of course there are other things that will eventually drive conflict
3. The K is a critique of the idea that conflicts are monocausal and detached from broader context
4. Provide examples to prove why the Affirmative doesn't solve the conflict [alt causes--which Charles and Caroline normally hate] become OFFENSE for the security K because they demonstrate the Aff's inability to resolve other causes of conflict
---READ CASE ARGUMENTS AND DISADVANTAGES (consistent with the K) which demonstrate the alt causes and the Aff's inability to solve conflict
---------frame the disad as an example of one of the instances of insecurity/conflicts that can't be resolved; to point out the Aff doesn't "fix" the problem, and that you don't need to deem states like Iran, etc. as irrational, etc. (don't read inconsistent impacts, plan ahead to make sure the arguments are consistent

AT: Withdrawing is Good
-Don't read a floating pic w/security K for Iraq withdrawal-style Affs--but say there's nothing intrinsic to the plan that we disagree with, but it's the things that are caught up with the plan (the logic of the 1AC, justifying withdrawal based on threats) that we object to; we may agree with the idea of the story, but not the logic that got to withdrawal the 1AC uses (there's just no real benefit to making it a floating PIC

AT: the Neg is Utopian
-The Aff is is MORE Utopian--leverage that against them. The logic and structure of knowledge that is necessary for the Aff to be possible is utopian--it assumes that all of humanity is basically the same and that everyone would basically get along, if the cause of the crisis stipulated by the 1AC was withdrawn
[The K recognizes not everyone is like you; things aren't monocausal, etc]

*Make root cause, self-fulfilling prophecy, and serial policy failure arguments EARLY and explain them.

Rhetoric vs. Discourse--
-Discourse is a frame and language for the world, so that we can figure out how to relate to each other (e.g. sexuality is a discourse, capitalism is a discourse); it is intersubjective and is far beyond the individual

-Rhetoric is the way communicate the logic and content of discourse; Rhetoric is a sustainment of discourse

Neg Work

-Drones--
working on restrictions on use of Drones--limit to reconnaissance and surveillance
-Net Benefit of civilian casualties

-Japan Missile Defense
-T--must be troops, not weapons system
-Disads
-Japan Rearm
-Japanese politics
-Lasers*
-PGS
-CPs?
-leave aegis, take missile interceptors (ours are better than Japan's even if Japan has them)
-CAROLINE SEND CITES

Andrew
-advantages
-compensation/lasers link s

Lab Notes 7/27

Agenda:
-Aff stuff
-Clash Drills

Second wave aff file
-AT: ALL Generics that could possibly apply to your aff (2AC blocks, CUTTING NEW EVIDENCE if necessary)
-Cut answers to probable negative arguments against your aff (ex: AT:Israel d/a if you're reading the Iraq aff)
-Better defense of the case

Iraq Policy
-AT:pullout causes instability
-AT: Democracy bad
-AT: Withdrawal kills heg, defense of the concept of overstretch, SQ defense spending unsustainable
-Iraq instability now
-Redeployment answers
-Pick better 1AC impacts
-AT: Conditions CP (example: perception of conditions are bad, makes it seem like we'll never leave)
-AT: Delay CP
-Fix the plan - withdraw nearly all military and police presence from Iraq by December 31st, 2011

Iraq Colonialism
-Discourse good/first cards that aren't generic
-AT: disads (have the right Ks of D/A set up ALONG WITH DIVERSE DEFENSE ON THE DISAD - reduce it to a much lower probability than they try to access)
-AT: their K answers (AT:util, AT: consequentialism, etc.)
-AT: redeployment d/a, no spillover, alt cause

South Korean Prostitutes
-AT: North Korea d/a
-AT: Conditions/threaten CP (say yes/no, unilateral action good, K the mechanism of using gender to get leverage)
-AT: Reform but not withdraw CP

Iraq Courts
-Israeli Strikes Advantage
-Judicial Independence Advantage
-Soft Power addon
-Russia addon
-Courts can rule on CIL cards
-AT: Generics (that apply)
-AT: CP to solve CIL but not Iraq (we withdraw from iraq soon anyway, just a question of whether it's framed as a voluntary decision of the executive or a constitutional order; doesn't solve pre-emption advantage)
-Perception that we will never ever leave evidence - means court ruling sends a signal of pullout that solves Iraqi stability

Surge
-AT: Politics
-AT: Topicality
-AT: Jirga Bad (hint: they're inevitable, it's just a question of whether they're successful)
-AT: PIC out of a small mission of the surge
-AT: Threaten/Condition CP (Afghanistan/Karzai wants/doesn't want the surge)
-AT: Redirect the surge to do other things CP (perception of U.S. escalating the war is the single disrupting factor to the Jirga)

Lab Notes 7/27

Agenda:
Go over clash drill assignments
Go over neg assignment progress
Additional Affirmative Work for 2As
How to think about your (K) Aff


Big Stick Iraq Neg
-Counterplan ideas
1. Advantage CP for Stability--invest in infrastructure; there's evidence saying that's key to Ag and oil industry and economic development
2. Condition CP--no external impact bc all Affs claim stability, so probably not the best strategy
3. SOFA agreement--good PIC ground, like excluding bases
4. Maybe engage Iran CP for Iran relatios
Iraq Stability
Iraq stabilizing--elections avoid sectarian violence, security forces are becoming more popular and stronger
Disads
-Kurds disad--U.S. troop presence key to
-Israel need to look into more
TONIGHT
-should look for more advantage CPs for short-term stability
-need to make sure we have the turns on stability as result of withdrawal

Topicality
-Affirming SOFA--Affirming something that is already law, rather than an actual reduction
-NEED evidence that the SOFA doesn't obligate withdrawal

Big Stick Japan Aff
-Alliance advantage--alliance is sustainable, have a bunch of newer evidence
-ADVANTAGE CP?: need evidence that says that X thing could preserve the alliance
-Khan advantage--need cards that Kahn is popular now; perhaps impact turn economic reforms
-China advantage--aff says U.S. troop presence in Japan threatens China; args about US-Japan alliance don't respond to the advantage
-CARDS WE NEED: -other factors scare China, China doesn't care about US-Japan relations, etc., *U.S. withdrawal from East --> Chinese aggression, Chinese hegemony, etc., withdrawal weakens the U.S. and hurts our ability to get peace in the region, U.S. key mediator role
-Environment-no spillover, oceans resilient, alt cause/no impact cards
-Environmental cooperation-US-Japan cooperation now, other things will solve global warming
-Democracy--need cards Japan strong democracy now, situation in Okinawa not that bad
-Rearm disads need more troops

Goals for 1NC
-relations advantage CP
-disad (compensation/rearm?)
-defense on advantages

Topicality
-most of the plan texts specific to Futenma
-maybe not substantial

Iraq K Aff
-attacking the the disad from the left with the redeployment DA (Turns the K and makes it more securitizing) and cards from the security K (neg) that say you shouldn't attach policy/plan text to the K
-Look into a PIC (i.e. a military presence in Iraq that are good--either helping with security or run counter to narrative of racism--people not involved in warfighting); maybe leave some nation building forces
-T Noncombat troops

TONIGHT
-look into one time missions (combat troops not stationed there sent in for specific missions)
-Look in the Security K answer files
Final file--we need 2 frontlines; 1 that assumes that we're going for a DA and case. The case frontline should include attacks from the left (why did you read a plan?) and reasons why disads/consequences matter; also have a frontline that would allow someone to go for state bad/foucault bad stuff

Japan K Aff
-middle of the road people say jurisdiction would send a signal of reform
-Gender IR args-essentializing: universalizing women's rights excludes certain women
-Squo sustainable--Khan looking to decentralize Okinawa and reform cards


TONIGHT
-DEFINITELY NEED: Gender K NEG file links to this aff are really good--maybe need to reput out the links to make sure they're well highlighted, tagged, etc.; write block to answer likely affirmative args
-DEFINITELY NEED AT: Patriarchy is root cause of war; perm-style cards that say it's possible to take action at the same time as considering security concerns
-look into a CP that reforms the bad practices of U.S. military; maybe amend jurisdiction over sofa to give Japan control
-see if we can find a redeployment disad

South Korea Prostitution Aff
-prostitution continues despite U.S. presence
-no income if U.S. base was gone

TONIGHT
-need cards that the situation is not so horrible
-find evidence for a CP that would increase regulation and punishment for violators--what kind of genuine restrictions we can place on the military

-Strategies
-need to get gender IR args together

Policy South Korea Aff
-mostly similar advantages
-military exercises about North Korea as well

TONIGHT
-focus on advantage answers and getting CPGS and Lasers
-organize Pan K/China threat ev from security K
-advantage answers: China modernizing now, regardless of plan, US-South Korea relations resilient, US-China won't fight, modernization isn't a threat
-look through Lasers and CPGS disads--cut more links
-EMAIL CHARLES FOR MODERNIZATION CITES

Nation Building Bad
-CP Jirga CP + leave some troops
-need evidence this is competitive given plan texts ("nearly all")
-need to prove that our form of nation building solves
Disads
-Taliban negotiations--withdrawal hurts ability to negotiate with the Taliban, key to Afghanistan stability
-Russia disad--pullout would freak out Russia, cause tensions between Russia and Pakistan
-Russia fills in with nation building--Russian nation building worse
-Threaten CP--want Russia to say no, get NB off of threatening them
-need to win that the the plan is an opportunity cost--that unilaterally withdrawing means we don't have leverage over Russia
CARD CHECKLIST
-Russia says no to human rights
-Russia wants us to say in Afghanistna
-Afghanistan gives us leverage over Afghanistan (they care a lot about)
-Good to threaten Russia (key to deter Russian aggression, key to heg/credibility)
CITE

Check out this article and other articles by these two authors:
Michael McFaul, Ph.D., Director of the Center on Democracy, Development, and Rule of Law at Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford, Non Resident Fellow at Carnegie, James M. Goldgeier, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, George Washington University; Public Policy Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (2007), Nov. 2005. [Hoover, What To Do About Russia, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/2921316.html]

Counter Narcotics
-nation building necessary for it to work
-good politics args
-T substantial? (use T to generate distinction between CP and Plan)
-Russia Disad! (from case)
TONIGHT: NEED CARDS:
-COUNTERPLAN--the only way to get out of counternarcotics problems is to reassign these troops to do nation building tasks
-CASE: need that we need nation building and that there's no way to solve as long as the drug trade continues

Afghanistan Drones
-operate under the assumption that the 1AC bans drones everywhere; we need to challenge the CIL spillover claim, but we can't probably win that it won't spillover to drones in other countries
-Pakistan relations--drones may not be key, would send in troops-
-military really loves the drones (opponents not super enthusiastic against them)--politics links
-LASERS!
-Airbase in Baluchistan-takes out non-court stuff
Gender IR K

Topicality
-drones of CIA they don't reduce--use this arg to prove that they don't solve

-Courts Arg
-cite but not rule on CP--cited in dicta rather than ruling
-net benefit of court stripping, if we move too quickly,
-need cards that say court stripping judicial independence
-some CIL case defense

FOLLOW UP/MUST GET TONIGHT
-Alex: troops will be substituted for dones
-Morgon: limited exception/highly regulated use CP; need cards that this is an internal military decision/CENTCOM (w/CMR net benefit)

Coercion
- IL stuff that if we win a DA to the case, it costs more money, requires us to intervene, etc.
- Util good. But really just consequentialism good - it doesn't matter if it's about util
- libertarianism bad, objectivism bad
- start thinking about writing 2NC blocks, extensions of our 1NC frontline stuff

Offshore Balancing
-China won't rise against the U.S. (brooks and wohlforth)--need very distinct warrants highlighted in the tags of the evidence--we need an answer to EVERY conceivable reason why China wouldn't be a threat
-PIC out of all but a small force in South Korea--capture all of the Aff's solvency for North Korea tensions, but leave some troops in South Korea to deter North Korea (not China)
-Advantage Counterplans for China and South Korea and Japan
-Politics-pretty good for unpopular
-East Asian politics disads
-Maybe rearm turns--destabilize international relations

TONIGHT--focus on south korea pic

Iraq PMCs

-Topicality--PMCS not
-Solvency questions--don't necessarily pull them out, don't deal with all PMCs, maybe PMCs are inevitable
-Plan is not popular (bill in Congress)
-Plan is unpopular in Congress

TONIGHT TO DO
-PMCs not that bad
-military not like
-congress doesn't like

Kuwait
-counterplan to give Kuwait say in other military arguments/operations
-status quo sustainable

File Due Wednesday Night
-need cards answering the advantages
-link to generics
-cards for CP--Kuwait wants a say

TNWs
-defense on advantages

-turkey prolif disad--compensation

Lab Notes 7/26

Agenda: Negative assignments
Big Stick Iraq Neg - Adam + Christine
-Get the demo debate evidence
-Need "iraq stable now" evidence
-Israel Disad
-Alt cause - you leave the bases
-Conditions CP
-Iran Invades Iraq Power Vacuum Disad
-Delay CP (2014 is better than 2011)

Big Stick Japan Neg - Parisa + Andrew
-AT: Remove the Aegis Missile Defense Systems
-Japan Rearm Disad (reorganize generic)
-Japan Compensation Disad

Iraq K Neg - Finn
-Prioritize broader K questions
-Get K of D/A answers (check the aff section of the security K)

Japan K Neg (Gender + Security) - Miya
-It's not THAT bad in Japan
-The aff is paternalistic to assume it's forced

South Korean Prostitutes - Dylan
-It's not THAT bad in South Korean (ex: sometimes choice is involved)
-The aff is paternalistic to assume it's forced
-CP to regulate prostitution on U.S. bases instead of withdrawing

South Korea Withdrawal (North Korean relations, South Korean armament good) - Kayleigh
-AT: Naval Exercises Aff
-Conditions CP?
-South Korean Rearm Bad disad (reorganize generic + write 2NC blocks)

Afghanistan - Nation Building Good/Bad Neg - Ula + Rachel

Afghanistan - Pull out Drones (K, policy, courts) - Morgan + Alex
-Alt cause: Special Ops (Wikileaks) - civillian casualties comes from the larger strategy, not the drones
-Topicality - substantial, equipment=/=military presence
-Stop using the drones CP (instead of pulling them out) - have the military command de-emphasize their use (CMR net benefit)
-Limited circumstance where drones may be useful (another n/b)
-Can't solve drone strikes in Pakistan
-Advantage CP - prioritize not killing civillians, but pursue limited military objectives with drones

Afghanistan - Counter Narcotics - Brady
-CP to reorganize troops to not do counter-narcotics (aff authors think that troops are good, they're just doing the wrong things)
-Politics Links
-Case Defense (not awful, Afghanistan stable now, aff no solvo)

Pull out everyone (Coercion!!!!!!) - Ciera

Offshore Balancing (Japan + South Korean bases = overstretch, Chinese peaceful heg good) - Rufus
-This is a heg bad aff
-Aff doesn't solve - no commitment to an offshore balancing strategy, they just cause withdrawal = worse formulation of unipolar strategy
-Look through the Heg good generic and organize it
-Advantage CPs to resolve their internal links (NOT "how else can we collapse heg?")
-Find people who respond to Layne and talk about specific strategies the U.S. can implement in specific regions to solve these problems

Iraqi PMCs (Neolib + PMCs bad) - Liam
-Topicality
-Lasers disad
-Regulation vs. banning PMCs altogether
-SQ solves? PMCs bill will pass, SQ solves, politics disad comes first

Kuwait Aff (Kuwait relations) - Drew
-Not really key to stability, especially b/c we have presence in Iraq
-Deconstruct the 1AC
-They don't hate us - we stabilize their country
-Israel Disad

Turkey TNWs (Iran Prolif, Terrorism) - Mariah
-Look at the DDW case neg
-The aff is a lie, SQ is sustainable
-Impact Defense
-Turkey Allied Prolif disad (reorganize the generic and write 2NC blocks)

Lab Notes 7/24

Agenda:
Read 1ACs (South Korea, Iraq Policy, No Surge, Nation Building Bad)
Finish Theory Clash Drills

Courts Version of the Iraq AFF
-want a couple of cards that the preventive doctrine is still alive and well from 2010; evidence that says this logic wasn't unique to the Bush Administration but is still alive and well; also, that having the legal justification is bad

Iran strikes advantage - future presidents will likely strike Iran, especially if Obama loses in 2012
Specific preemption modeling scenario -- maybe Israel (considering preventative strikes on Iran)
Plan key to pressure Israel - gives us cred in preventing Israel-Iran strikes

"with all deliberate speed" - lets the courts change the law Brown v Board of Education style - causes a more gradual withdrawal that doesn't piss off the other branches nearly as much

need an iraq specific addon/advantage, preferably for the 2AC, to deal with advantage CPs if the 1AC is just CIL/Judicial Independence advantages

need "other branches follow the courts" evidence

Reinvigorates preventative war I-Law, but not I-Law as a whole;

Aff changes the nature of withdrawal plan - right now it's a political decision, the plan makes it a judicial decision

Big Stick Iraq 1AC
Withdrawing from Iraq = enough troops to solve overstretch?
Shorten the advantage - the overstretch advantage is overstretched
More conclusive "won't pull out but look like we will" evidence - takes out the link to politics

Democracy impact is sort of iffy - transitioning illiberal democracy impact turns are kind of devastating in this case - lots of evidence that democratizing the middle east causes instability
Instead, frame the legitimacy advantage as democratization inevitable, but U.S. presence destabilizes that - pullout causes stable democratic transition which provides a stable model of democratization to the middle east

Work on withdrawal causes stability

Afghanistan Aff
Nation-building turns inevitable small scale conflict into large scale Afghan civil war

U.S. presence incites Afghan militancy - pushes people towards the Taliban away from Karzai/U.S. and strengthens the Taliban
Large scale conflict coming (with Pakistan, et al.) due to U.S. presence polarizing the issue

plan: withdraw population-centric counterinsurgency forces

answers to flip flops

Afghan Surge Aff
need Jirga resolves conflict now
peace coming now if there's no surge because the surge disrupts it - the process is fragile and on the brink, the surge will break Jirga resolution

South Korean Prostitutes
Standpoint epistemology - there is no neutral, objective form of decisionmaking separate from the sum of our personal experiences
Patriarchy impacts

Only the aff makes an effort to address the womens rights issue - prefer the aff's qualitative impact over the neg's quantitative one because war is inevitable unless we challenge patriarchy

Avoid the "no value to life" terminology

Personalize the 1AC - list the terrible things these women are forced to do to highlight the problems with what we let continue

Lab Notes 7/23

Agenda:
Discuss electives
Theory clash drills
Listen to Iraq K 1AC
Aff discussion
Reminder: 1ACs must be ready to read in lab tomorrow afternoon, and aff files should be ready for an initial review by tomorrow night.

Iraq K 1AC
Two currents to the aff:
1. Attempts to justify continued presence are framed in a colonialist perspective - frames the U.S. as perpetually spreading South Asian development.
2. The way we speak about Iraq radically frames how we deal with it.

First advantage - War in Iraq based on faulty security assumptions, which is bad
Second advantage - War in Iraq is racist - framed in inherent racist sentiments in U.S. institutions.
- need to win it's institutionally racist, NOT individually racist (e.g. it wasn't Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, it was a problem with the U.S. as a whole)

Add a card that continued justifications for the war are racist - the idea that Iraqis can't stabilize their own country is inherently paternalistic - White Man's Burden etc.

Everest is a conspiracy whacko - be prepared with a K of security analysts/security academia from the Security K file

The two groups that criticized the Iraq war were the realists (who focused on policy consequences) and the ones who criticized the war on ethical grounds - we shouldn't dismiss a form of argument just because it isn't palatable in publicized discourse

Iraq = starting point for a new era of colonialism by the U.S.

AT: alt cause/no spillover
1. First step/starting point
2. Criticize the negs approach - the "all or nothing" impact framing mentality is not only unrealistic but also hides the systematic violence U.S. presence perpetuates on the people of Iraq - the neg is obsessed with trying to find and fix one discrete, identifiable problem in one go. Their disads are terminally non-unique in such a mentality because the discursive conditions for wars continue to exist
3. Discourse first - the act of imagining an Iraq free of colonial influence influences the way we think about policy from a Westernized perspective

AT: inherency/pullout in 2011
1. Systemic impact o/w - waiting til 2011 still assumes it's okay to let colonialism continue
2. We won't actually pull out - we'll do it slowly and leave behind "non combat troops" - doesn't solve the case

There are different ways to imagine the plan as a good idea - as debaters who can recognize the way academia perpetuated a colonial war on Iraq, we should be able to make a normative statement on what should or should not happen in a similar manner

If security produces more insecurity, we're left with devil's choices and impossible decisions to make - we should refuse the idea that things like colonialism are too deeply embedded to break free of. The only reason we believe that is because we're already locked into that mentality.

Lab Notes 7/22

Agenda:
- How to write a 1AC
- Discussion of aff progress
(picking people to organize/consolidate files)
- Theory discussion and assignment of groups for tomorrow

Everyone, for tonight:
meet with your sub-group to figure out how your work interacts. Take a look at each other's 1AC-quality cards. Begin to construct 1ACs

How to write a 1AC

General 1AC Writing—How To

- let the literature define the 1AC - not the other way around. See what's out there before you start looking for specific things. If you don't, you'll lose out on the unexpected turns that the research might take which can improve the aff
- as cutting cards, star cards based on quality; mark some as 1AC cards. This is particularly important when you're working with other people--to clarify which of your cards are good when someone else has to organize them.
- organize the Aff file first—helps you know what args you have (although should know while cutting); helps you find cards within sections
- write out ideal advantage tags/establish basic structure of each section of the 1AC; fill cards into this outline and morph tags as necessary. Only do this AFTER you've done a fair amount of research. You should have a good sense of the literature before you start doing targeted searches to fill the gaps. Don't START out doing homerun searches.

Things that Make Some 1ACs More Strategic Than Others

- General premise. Build your 1AC from the back forward. Think about the 2AR, and what tools you'll want to have available. Build a 1AC that contains those tools.
- Think about your debating style, and choose among the different options for types of affs. Possibilities: big stick, small but probable, something more critique-y. In each of these cases, there's some way for you to leverage your skill and familiarity and style of debating.
- Sometimes you can force the debate into your territory. For example, our surge aff is arguably not topical, but if you know that you can do a lot of work to prepare for the obvious response. And because it's a little different it neutralizes a lot of the generic work that other teams will do
- Diversity of impacts. In particular, a diversity of impacts that operate in different in frames. For example, have a 1AC with one impact that happens very fast, another that is more probable/bigger, another that deals with systemic risks. Or, you can have one impact that's premised on security/war, another that's about the environment, and a third that's about loss of dignity. The range of options makes it much harder for the negative to isolate the debate via impact comparison
- If possible, read impacts that are likely to turn likely negative positions. For example, reading a prolif impact for Turkey TNWs - designed to answer the allied prolif DA
- Evidence that makes multiple claims. You want 1AC cards that are dense and full of a variety of arguments. Your time is limited, so read cards that have multiple purposes and uses for later speeches. Think about evidence that has warrants that can be used to answer likely Neg args in the 2AC
- Sometimes include preempts to likely negative arguments. Embedded answers to DAs/counterplans. However, NEVER use the terminology of 'put away your X argument.' It's obnoxious.
- Name your advantages clearly and concisely. One or two words, ideally. Avoid silly names. Don't try to be clever - just be clear.

One other thing

- Have a K-friendlier version of the 1AC for teams that are likely to go for Ks. This doesn't mean taking out ALL of the impacts, or reading a 'critique' aff - it means picking some good impacts that you feel capable of defending against either a K or a policy team. For example, you might take out your hegemony advantage, or at least reading a soft power based argument rather than a hard power one. The idea is not to AVOID the link, but to reduce the magnitude of it, while still giving yourself some big impacts. Take out your evidence that would give a clear link (ev that describes the Mideast as inherently unstable, etc.). Read fewer impacts, and give yourself more time for preempts.

Questions:
Should we read a lot of short advantages or a few good ones? The latter. There's a point of diminishing returns with reading tons and tons of impacts. That said, there are certainly circumstances where overloading the negative with a lot of impacts can be very useful. This is the case with some of the big stick affs, where there are five or six advantages that have genuinely good internal links. This can make the debate difficult for the negative--but be careful not to spread yourself out.

How should we go about starting to research an aff? Start big. Very big. Read very generally, get a sense of what qualified people seem to say about the issue, narrow your focus a little bit. Within that narrowed focus, get a sense of what people think, and then narrow your focus a bit more. Your eventual aff file should be terraced--as you become more familiar you can keep getting more and more specific. Your completed aff file should almost always have a lot of extraneous work that is floating around it, but didn't end up being particularly useful. If you don't have that flotsam and jetsam, it's a good sign that you weren't searching broadly enough and won't know if your aff is really a good idea.

How should we write the plan? Most generally, write your plan LAST. Find your good solvency cards and figure out what they support. Build your plan off the wording used by those authors. Also, know your terminology. What is the official name of what you're talking about. More broadly, can you defend every word in the plan against a potential PIC? You can't research every PIC, obviously, but you should have a reason for each word you include. Further, consider potential good counterplans. Avoid specifying things that you don't need to specify if it might expose you to a counterplan.

K aff. Should it have a plan text? Almost always. But the main test you have to ask your is whether you have an answer to the argument that we should do the whole aff except for the plan. If not, then it will probably be dangerous to read a plan. Possibly that means you should reconsider the aff, more than it means you should read the aff without a plan text.

Discussion of aff progress

The Court as actor

The problem with stripping/compliance. If the Court orders withdrawal, will any of the other branches comply? Seems likely that they wouldn't. It might be hard for the neg to find evidence for that claim...but similarly the aff might have some trouble proving that they would comply.
One strategic avenue might be to think about whether it's possible to construct an advantage based on the constitutional crisis that the plan provokes. This would still apply even if the other branches defy the Court.

Considering our previous discussion of the importance of a variety of aff impacts, we ideally want to write this 1AC to have 3 advantages: an Iraqi conflict advantage, an advantage about incorporation of CIL generally, and an advantage about the specific incorporation of CIL in the instance of preventative war and preemption doctrine.

Iraq aff - policy version

Adam is going to organize.

Heg adv
stuff we need to get a little better on:
- stuff that ties the military responsiveness/readiness to overall hegemony, and that ties economic might to primacy.
- uniqueness for heg being on the tipping point.
- soft power? We don't have much on this. Andrew is going to take it over after he talks with Rufus about the heg stuff.

Govt adv
Adam is basically done with the advantage. Right now the impact is Mideast democracy, which we'd like to be able to avoid. We should look for new impact scenarios that are less easy to turn.
Clearly this is another link to Iraqi stability, which is good, but it would be nice to have it get us an external impact.

Stability adv
We have the rough outlines of this, but need to tighten it up. The focus for this advantage needs to be sectarian conflict, the presence of US provoking conflict, etc.

All of these advantages should be more or less done by the end of the night tonight.

Iraq aff - critique version

Ula has a (mostly) complete 1AC that she'll email to Caroline and Charles tonight. They'll make suggestions, and send it back. It will be revised in library tomorrow and presented for the lab tomorrow night.
We're still in a bit of trouble on the spillover claim, so that will be a focus for work the next couple days.

South Korea

Rachel is going to organize.
We're going to have one big advantage, with two components. Forced prostitution bad, and a broader framework of feminist IR.

Afghanistan - Nation building aff

Mariah is going to organize.
We are in reasonably good shape on the warlords/stability/escalation advantage and the heg advantage. Goal is to have rough outlines of these advantages written by tomorrow afternoon to send to Caroline and Charles to examine.

Afghanistan - Surge aff

For now, Caroline is going to organize. Send your files to her
Our U claim is that the jirga is starting to produce peace. One potential idea is to make this a whole advantage to itself. argue that the military escalation will disrupt the bottom-up peacebuilding and goodwill that the jirga produced.
CHARLES - REMEMBER TO SEND CITES ON MILITARIZATION DISRUPTING THE SUCCESS OF THE JIRGA.
Pakistan advantage. There is cooperation now, but the surge disrupts that cooperation.

Theory clash drills

2AC: 20 seconds
2NC: 45 seconds
1AR: 30 seconds
2NR: 1 minute
2AR: 1 minute

Consult counterplans (Ula v. Andrew) - consult NATO vs. Afghanistan aff
International fiat (Liam v. Rachel)
Condition CPs (Adam v. Alex) - condition withdrawal on modification of the Iraq constitution
Timeframe counterplans (Mariah v. Morgen) - Aff withdraws from Iraq in 2011, CP withdraws in 2014
Agent CPs (Ciera v. Finn) - aff is executive, CP is court
Textual v. functional competition (Rufus v. Kayleigh) - Aff is Iraq, neg says/writes Iraq in Arabic
AIKs (Drew v. Parisa) Iraq aff, neg says do the plan without the representations of Mideast violence
Intrinsicness (Christine v. Brady) Energy bill
Text to the alt/vague alt. (Miya v. Dylan) - Security K, and the alt is 'vote negative'

Lab Notes 7/21

-cut cards that make causal claims; 1ACs sometimes require spin--need to scaffold evidence and think about how evidence is usable in debate

Afghanistan

Anti-corruption Aff
-current aff plan not working; no evidence that U.S. really using police presence to crack down on corruption; also susceptible to CPs to reform policy (no reason removing people is key)
-corruption evidence is still useful, but will transition to the other two Afghanistan Aff

Nation Building Bad Aff

-a lot of evidence that we should just focus on counter-insurgency (also good evidence that nation building is good)
-aff is very strategic: able to say Afghanistan is not fixable, but that there's still a lot of variation in what could happen--there's always is going to be conflict, but only a question of whether the war will escalate, and the only thing that will determine that escalation is U.S. presence as an instigator
-selective engagement (author: Robert Art) look for evidence that U.S. should only commit in so far as its vital national interests are concerned
-Evidence that we need:
Afghan Stability
1. There is no such thing as a route to a peaceful democratic state
2. If the U.S. removes itself, that will prevent the coming conflict from escalating to a massive conflict and will instead remain limited to small scale power balancing
Hegemony Advantage--Selective Engagement
1. We can back off from nation building, which resolves the reason why most people object to hegemony
2. Scenario One: In the world where U.S. remains the dominant hegemon, it's really just a question of whether people work with or against us.
3. Scenario Two: U.S. is at a serious risk of losing its superpower status (primacy is good), but that doesn't require aggressive unilateral invasions.
4. Scenario Three: Aggressive U.S. hegemony provokes balancing, and if we leave Afghanistan, it would resolve that backlash.
Check the DDW Heg Files! for selective engagement evidence

Surge Aff

-A lot of the 30,000 troops will be PMCs
-Terrorism Advantage--increasing troop levels will increase conflict and terrorism
-Defending the status quo--need to win that the status quo is sustainable, current situation is good
-Focus research on the idea that if we leave things alone, Afghanistan will be kind of stable, and only if we add more troops would be bad

Lab Notes 7/20

South Korea

Prostitution Aff

-only way to solve prostitution is to withdraw troops (reform/criminalization won’t work)
-look for evidence that US withdrawal and U.S.-South Korea conflict inevitable to non-unique disads
-focus on evidence that talks about forced prostitution as opposed to voluntary (search term: “slavery,” “forced”)

Iraq

Policy Version:
-occupation violates international law
-Turkish relations
-Iraq stability--U.S. troops are cause of instability
-imperial overstretch/hegemony (includes spending tons of money, makes military threats less credible, erodes responsiveness, erodes U.S. soft power)
-Courts Aff--debate about legality of U.S. occupation and war; look for evidence about codifying a norm against preventive war (anti-preemptive war)
CHARLES--SEND CIERA CITES ABOUT CIL INCORPORATION
Colonialism Version:
-US used war to promote democracy as a guise for colonialism
-Need to look for spillover cards--doing the plan would have broader effect

Afghanistan

Nation Building Bad (and/or Good):
-Trade-off between terrorism and opium crack-down, and that drives terrorism; solvency advocates say should only go after terrorists
-Nation-building generally fails
-Should exclusively focus on counter-terrorism?
-Potentially 2 versions of the aff--nation building good and bad--CUT BOTH!

Police Aff:
-Evidence still looking for solvency advocate for police & corruption aff--most evidence is about failings of Afghanistan police;
-Let the mafia run the country ! The Aff will probably say we're trying to push the police to crack down on corruption, and that's bad because cracking down on corruption creates fault lines in the country
-Things to look for: Reforms will fail, No enforcement of reforms, Trying to crack down on corruption is counterproductive
-Remove police presence/training--withdraw them (how does Germany's training program interact with that?)
CHARLES POST CITES ON CORRUPTION GOOD

Surge:
-30,000 troops are going to go into Afghanistan
-Shouldn't commit more troops
-Causes more terrorism
-Obama credibility
-Solvency evidence isn't that important--SQUO is good/ok, don't add the troops, adding troops causes all the problems (Afghanistan stable now, adding troops will only risk making things worse)